Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 1901–2000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a video‑encoding patent. The Patent Owner counters that the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that Google’s statutory arguments are unfounded.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’448 patent, alleging statutory and procedural violations. The petition highlights failures to meet hearing requirements, to provide a merits determination, and to follow APA rules.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution denial in three IPRs involving Advanced Coding Technologies' patents. The order confirms the original institution decisions remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01189 after reaching a settlement covering multiple patents. The motion cites lack of a final written decision and the benefits of conserving Board resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP LLC requests the PTAB Director deny Samsung's IPR on its 5G LBT patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on flawed expert testimony, and that the prior art mirrors prosecution disclosures. Samsung’s prior knowledge and the imminent district‑court trial further support denial.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file, limiting disclosure under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01188, citing their settlement agreement and requesting it be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to end the proceeding and seal the settlement details.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP seeks to block Samsung’s IPR over its 5G power‑saving patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on expert testimony, and that Samsung had prior notice of the patent. The request cites timing of a parallel trial and unlikely stay to argue for discretionary denial of institution.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s U.S. Patent 11,905,896 covering dual‑fuel generator selector switches. The petition asserts that 38 claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions. Petitioners seek cancellation of all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Hannibal IP’s U.S. Patent 11,272,535 covering LBT failure detection in 5G UE. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple pre‑grant publications and 3GPP standards. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the claims.
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
ShutterLight petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Pathway IP’s 7,841,729 webcam illuminator patent, asserting obviousness over eight prior‑art references.
Pinterest, Inc. v.OpenTV, Inc. et al.
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate OpenTV’s ’169 Patent claims covering interactive‑TV rendering methods, citing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
Spotify AB et al. v.Tijerino, Manuel
Spotify USA Inc. successfully challenged 17 claims of the '9146925 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB preliminarily found that the combination of prior art references—Laut, Kincaid, and Bongiovi—renders the claimed digital jukebox system obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trial will take place.
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Pathway IP LLC's '729 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Petitioner argues that Claim 1 is obvious over Naghi and Dine by combining their respective features to create an optimized webcam illumination device.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution in an IPR against Hannibal IP LLC's patent 11272535. The proceeding is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
M/S. Vaidehi Agro Oils Pvt. Ltd v.M/S. Sri Tulasi Industries
The Telangana High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed by M/S. Vaidehi Agro Oils Pvt. Ltd against an order passed by the District Judge, Kamareddy. The petitioner argued that their application seeking a stay of proceedings in a trademark infringement suit should not have been dismissed as infructuous while a higher court's stay was still pending. The High Court found the trial judge's dismissal erroneous and set aside the impugned order, directing the lower court to reconsider the applications.
M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc. v.Mr Rajesh Kumar
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc. against the defendants regarding alleged infringement and passing off. The court found a prima facie case based on the use of deceptively similar marks ('Safe AQ'/'Safe Accu') and trade dress, as well as confusingly similar corporate names. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from selling or marketing products that mimic Sinocare’s intellectual property, and specific infringing URLs were directed to be disabled by e-commerce platforms.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Krs Multipro Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Krs Multipro Private Limited. The suit involves allegations of trademark and copyright infringement concerning the popular brand 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Based on a prima facie case, the court found that the Defendants' product packaging copied the Plaintiff's registered mark precisely, posing a risk of market confusion. Consequently, the Defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of marks like 'NEFROKIND' and 'SILOKIND' was likely to cause confusion with Mankind's well-known trademarks, including 'MANKIND' and its formative variants. Given the pharmaceutical nature of the products and the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the public, the court restrained the defendant from selling or advertising the impugned marks until further hearing.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v.HL Display AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s (BSRP) application for suspensive effect against an information order issued by the Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The Court of Appeal held that BSRP failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting suspension, as information orders are necessary to ensure a high level of patent protection and BSRP had not shown manifest error or that the appeal would be devoid of purpose.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for legal costs in provisional measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The court held that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of substantiation regarding the alleged difficulty of enforcing a costs order in the United States, as their reliance on a prior Munich Local Division order was insufficient to establish facts specific to this case.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o.
Brita SE, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1 relating to water filter devices with locking cartridges, filed a preliminary injunction application against the Polish company Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. The defendant is part of the Fileder Group, whose German distribution subsidiary had previously been warned by Brita for alleged patent infringement and issued a cease-and-desist declaration, subsequently identifying the defendant as the supplier of the allegedly infringing water filter systems. The Local Division Hamburg issued an order on November 6, 2025, following receipt of the application on November 5, 2025.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The Board instituted IPR2020‑01206 on 294 claims of the ’691 patent and held eight claims unpatentable for anticipation by Grupp ’483, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB found 11 of the 14 challenged claims of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12, and 14 survived. Written‑description and enablement challenges were rejected.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung's claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 of the ’395 patent were anticipated by Goodnick, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were left intact.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims of the ’261 patent unpatentable after concluding that prior art Grupp ’483 anticipates the claims and Jammy renders them obvious. Motions to exclude expert testimony were denied.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4 and 13 of the ’691 patent are unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness, while the remaining challenged claims survive.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and OAK IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01129 following a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’880 patent and related proceedings.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and Oak IP LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,937,880 before the Board instituted trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Oak IP's U.S. Patent No. 10,937,880, asserting lack of written description for the "oxide of titanium" genus and insufficient enablement of specific contact resistivity limits. The petition relies on Grupp’483 for anticipation and Jammy for obviousness.
ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.
ProAmpac has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,072,148, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references.
ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01143 for ProAmpac Holdings Inc., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
P.Pandian v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of P.Pandian, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to allow the renewal of the trademark 'THILTH'. The core issue was that despite the mark expiring, the petitioner could not renew it because the Registry failed to issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court emphasized the Registrar's duty to inform proprietors about approaching expiration, thereby enabling timely renewal or restoration.
Sunil Jain v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Sunil Jain against the Registrar of Trademarks and others. The court noted that pleadings were complete but directed the respondent no. 2 to file their reply within one week, condoning the delay. The matter has been scheduled for listing on December 17, 2025, indicating ongoing litigation rather than a final decision.
Smt. Reena Paltani And 3 Others v.M/S K.K. Tobacco Co. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court set aside a Commercial Court's rejection of an interim injunction application in a trademark infringement suit involving tobacco products. The petitioners argued that the respondents were infringing their registered trademarks ('KK99'/'KK 99') despite having a different registration ('V99K'). The court allowed the exemption from pre-litigation mediation and directed the lower court to urgently decide on the interim injunction and receiver appointment, recognizing the urgency of preventing further infringement.
Rajat Sharma & Anr. v.Tamara Doc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in a suit concerning alleged infringement of personality and publicity rights, registered trademarks, and copyright. The court directed the plaintiff to serve advanced copies of their pending applications on the counsel representing proposed defendant no. 17 (Google LLC). This procedural step moves the litigation forward as the court prepares for further hearings regarding the injunction and impleadment requests.
M/s.Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP. v.M/s.Sangeetham House of Veg
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of a conflicting trademark. The petitioner, M/s.Sangeetha Caterers, successfully argued that the respondent's mark, 'SANGEETHAM HOUSE OF VEG,' was registered in bad faith after a court decree had already mandated the respondent to change their business name to 'Hotel Raagam - House of Veg.' The Court held that the registration was voidable because it suppressed prior litigation and compromise terms, ordering the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the conflicting mark forthwith.
M/s.Aston Packaging Solution v.The Registrar of Trademarks, Trade Marks Registry
M/s.Aston Packaging Solution approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against delays in its trademark opposition proceedings. The petitioner, who owns the 'ASTON' device trade mark application, noted that despite completing all pleadings and evidence in Opposition No.1011897, no hearing had been fixed by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court intervened, directing the Respondent to promptly consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation seeking an early hearing within a specified timeframe.
Dolle A/S v.Farko a.o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1, with Dolle A/S as plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, and four FAKRO entities (from Austria, Germany, Denmark, and Poland) as defendants and counterclaimants. The decision addresses three key legal points: the interpretation of 'same invention' under Article 87 EPC for priority purposes, procedural rules regarding the timing of validity attacks in revocation counterclaims, and the interpretation of general claim terms in light of prior art cited in the patent. The Local Division Hamburg issued its decision on November 5, 2025, confirming the disclosure standard for priority as corresponding to the added matter standard.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., against expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH. The appeal concerns the assessment of added matter (unzulässige Erweiterung) under Article 123(2) EPC, particularly where the patent was derived from an international application not filed in an official EPO language. The Court of Appeal addressed key legal questions regarding the role of translations of international applications and the standard for assessing disclosures in earlier applications.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and patent‑owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The parties seek to separate the agreement from the IPR record and limit third‑party access.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Phelan Group’s U.S. Patent 10,259,470 covering a driver‑authentication and safety system. The petition cites ten grounds of obviousness or anticipation, relying on prior‑art references such as Arshad, Petrik, Siwinski, Wu, Kudo and Murphy. The requester seeks cancellation of all twenty claims.
TRANS UNION, LLC v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Trans Union, LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application (No. 4268/CHE/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, which rejected it primarily on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(k). The appellant argued that the system and method for matching database records was inherently technical, providing a solution to data quality issues in emerging markets. The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the invention involved technical considerations implemented by hardware, but remanded the matter to refine the claims' scope and ensure adequate enablement.
Trans Union, LLC v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Trans Union, LLC appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding its application for a database matching system. The core issue was whether the invention constituted a non-patentable 'computer programme per se' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the invention involved technical considerations and achieved a technical effect by optimizing data retrieval. However, due to overly broad claims, the court remanded the matter for further examination to narrow the scope and ensure enablement.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a discretionary denial, arguing national‑security stakes and material examiner errors render the ’779 patent invalid under §§102 and 103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC’s request for a Director review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial was rejected. The patent owner argues the Director correctly applied the law and that TSMC’s new‑fact and abuse‑of‑discretion theories lack merit.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing’s request for review of the institution decisions in five related IPRs, keeping the institution denials against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC in place.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’779 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Torii, Mise, Yu, Gilmer and Chen. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s U.S. Patent 12,019,461 covering remote fluid‑handling control. The challenger argues that a combination of four prior‑art references makes all 17 claims obvious under §103 and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to invalidate Intellectual Ventures I LLC's patent covering virtual community networks and IP routing. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the petitioner could not persuasively demonstrate obviousness over prior art references like Caronni-I and RFC-1383.
AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY LLC v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 4693/CHENP/2010) based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). The invention relates to a method for tracing upstream and downstream data lineage using graphical representations.
AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY LLC v.The Controller Of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 4693/CHENP/2010) based on lack of novelty and inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). The invention relates to a method for tracing upstream and downstream data lineage using metadata management systems.
LG Electronics Inc v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors
LG Electronics Inc filed a suit against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors seeking restraining orders for infringing its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 4G and 5G cellular standards. The court passed several interim orders allowing the plaintiff various applications, including filing confidential documents and adding claims for infringement of additional patents.
Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v.LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's decision to deny an interim injunction against LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or passing off, particularly lacking evidence of market use and sufficient goodwill prior to the respondent's usage. Furthermore, the High Court noted the appellant's deliberate concealment of facts, leading it to decline interference in the appeal.
Rajan Adlakha v.Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.
Rajan Adlakha filed a writ petition seeking direction against the Registrar of Trademarks regarding a pending opposition. The petitioner argued that since the opponent failed to file evidence by the statutory deadline, the opposition was deemed abandoned under Trademark Rules, but the Registrar had not formally recorded this status. The Delhi High Court directed the Respondent No. 1 (Registrar) to treat the petition as a formal representation and pass appropriate orders recording the abandonment within four weeks.
M/S Landmark Crafts Private Limited v.Romil Gupta Proprietor Of M/S Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of a defendant's application to take certain affidavits on record in a trademark infringement suit. The court ultimately allowed the application, accepting the additional documents despite procedural delays. This decision emphasizes judicial flexibility and the importance of considering the context of litigation history when determining admissibility of evidence.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al
1 UPC_CFI_666/2024 UPC_CFI_ 199/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division The Hague delivered on 3/11/2025 concerning: order after interim conference (R. 105.5) Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 07/11/2024 The Walt Disne
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et. al.
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim on November 3, 2025, in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333. The plaintiff, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, brought the action against numerous defendants affiliated with the Geely automotive group, including entities related to Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart brands. The case involves an opposition under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, and the order was issued by the Rapporteur Judge Sender.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s U.S. Patent 11,270,174 covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. Expert Henry Dreifus argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Doughty, Abe, and others.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the institution decisions in seven IPRs, including the case covering patent 11,270,174. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request to overturn the USPTO’s denial of institution for several IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent (US 9,122,965). The petition argues the Board erred and seeks to have the IPRs instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s patent, citing lack of opposition and the dismissal of related litigation.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR covering its Samsung Pay technology. The petition argues that recent USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due‑process rights, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition against iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 11,270,174. The supporting declaration authenticates numerous prior‑art patents and applications that Samsung relies on to challenge the patent’s claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
iCashe, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of seven IPR petitions. The Patent Owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation was considered but not dispositive. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of SiOnyx’s image‑sensor patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and urges the Board to institute review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of iCashe’s NFC smartcard patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Bangs, Kerdraon, and Koh references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial does not apply.
Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of the ’128 patent covering cable‑based music distribution, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Yurt and Logan) and that discretionary denial is improper.
Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Apple Inc. successfully requested institution of an IPR against Ziklag IP LLC's patent, asserting that claims are obvious over prior art references Yurt and Logan. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Jayant Ratti & Ors.
Omnidya Tech Llp filed petitions seeking revocation of two Indian patents (IN 317629 and IN 373372) before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the relevant respondents and directed them to file their replies within six weeks.
Synertec Pty Ltd v.Union Of India & Anr.
Synertec Pty Ltd filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its patent application (No. 202217030233) which had been deemed withdrawn under Section 11B(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner argued that the failure to file the request for examination was due to an inadvertent error by its Patent Agent regarding the deadline. The Court allowed the petition, finding that the Petitioner acted diligently and should not suffer consequences of the agent's mistake.
Sri. Manjappa Chatrad v.3M India Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 416744 ('Road Safety Device') held by Respondent No. 2 (3M Innovative Properties Company). The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that patent revocation is a civil remedy falling under the High Court's original civil jurisdiction and should be filed as a Civil Petition, not a Writ Petition.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses complex procedural issues arising from concurrent litigation between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma and The Controller of Patents. Specifically, the court examined whether a revocation petition remains maintainable even if the patentee has already raised an invalidity defence in an infringement suit. Furthermore, the bench deliberated on the highly arguable question of whether a patent can be revoked after its term has expired by efflux of time. The court decided to list the matter for further hearing and stayed the impugned order.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Celator Pharmaceuticals Inc & Ors.
Mylan Laboratories Limited filed an appeal against the order passed by Respondent No. 2 rejecting the Post-Grant Opposition filed by Mylan against Patent No. IN 315447 held by Respondent No. 1. The court issued notice and directed parties to file replies and rejoinders.
Jaquar And Company Private Limited v.Jaquar Franchise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim injunctive relief in favor of Jaquar And Company Private Limited against various defendants regarding the unauthorized use of its 'JAQUAR' trademark. The court ordered immediate suspension of specific domain names associated with the mark and directed actions to freeze relevant bank accounts, recognizing the brand's well-known status. This order sets a strong precedent for protecting established trademarks in the digital age.
Silvermaple Healthcare Services Private Limited v.Desai Hospitals Ventures LLP & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Silvermaple Healthcare Services against Desai Hospitals Ventures LLP and others regarding alleged infringement of trademarks and copyrights related to hair restoration services. The court found that the Plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Defendants continued using the protected marks and copyrighted materials, leading to a favorable order for the Plaintiff.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Damyaa (Pj) Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Damyaa (Pj) Foods Private Limited. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'SCHEZWAN TUFANI CHUTNEY' was a clear case of dishonest imitation and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark, 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Given the Plaintiff's established reputation and significant market presence, the injunction aims to prevent consumer confusion and irreparable harm.
Tata Sons Private Limited v.Martuj Ali & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited against Martuj Ali & Anr. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the well-known status and extensive use of the 'TATA' mark by the Plaintiff. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from using the impugned mark 'TATA BIRI' or any deceptively similar variations, preventing consumer confusion regarding their association with the Tata Group.
XX v.Y
The Delhi High Court granted several critical reliefs to the Plaintiffs in their trademark infringement suit against Y. The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed without mandatory pre-institution mediation, masked the parties' identities during initial proceedings, and permitted an ex parte interim injunction supported by a Local Commissioner's commission. This decision allows the plaintiffs, who own the 'HERO' brand, to swiftly investigate and address the alleged sale of counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway’s MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over a emissions‑control patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and WEC Energy Group filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to limit public access to the agreement, citing Board rules and regulations.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR against the ’430 patent for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light following settlements with BirchTech. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and public policy favoring settlement.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates challenge Birchtech's patent on mercury control, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the Director’s review request should be denied. The petitioners contend there are no settled expectations, no time‑bar issues, and no undisclosed parties influencing the case.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 10,668,430 patent, arguing the case should be handled in an existing MDL and that the Board misapplied the privity analysis under 35 U.S.C. §315(b).
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The IPR against BirchTech’s patent was terminated for MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement, while the proceeding remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and PacificCorp.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and MidAmerican Energy have jointly moved to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to WEC Energy Group after the parties settled their dispute over Patent 10,668,430. The termination does not affect the remaining petitioners, and the proceeding continues against them.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning patent 10,668,430 after reaching a settlement with Birchtech Corp. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding with respect to WEC Energy Group.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech jointly moved to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreements separate from the public patent file.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates settled an IPR against BirchTech, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding for two petitioners while keeping the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was treated as business‑confidential information.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Merus N.V.'s U.S. Patent No. 9,358,286 covering bispecific antibodies. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Lazar, Arathoon, and Cabrera, and argues against discretionary denial.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Barco’s 2024 video‑conferencing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and examiner error.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 28 claims of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury‑removal technology for coal‑fired power plants. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation arguments over four prior‑art references and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy group petitions the PTAB to institute IPR of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury removal methods, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support.